1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 DR. JOHN J. WALSH, Case No.: 22cv449-JO-BGS

11 Plaintiff,

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

12 v. 13 CALIFORNIA ENERGY DEVELOPMENT INC., et. al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff filed his complaint in this action on April 5, 2022. Dkt. 1. Plaintiff pleaded 17 federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. See id. The only federal claim 18 brought by Plaintiff, however, was criminal statute 18 U.S.C.A. § 1344, which does not 19 provide for a private right of action by a civil plaintiff. See, e.g., Brumbaugh v. Comerica 20 Bank, 2008 WL 11337490, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2008). Accordingly, on October 18, 21 2022, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be dismissed 22 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Dkt. 4.1 Plaintiff was warned that failure to 23 comply with the order to show cause would result in the dismissal of the action. See id. 24 25 26 27 1 The Court also ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the action should not be dismissed for failure to serve the summons and complaint within 90 days after filing the complaint, as required by Federal Rule 28 1 Plaintiff’s written response to the above order to show cause was due by November 2 16, 2022. As of February 15, 2023, Plaintiff has still not filed a response to the Court’s 3 order. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this action for lack of subject matter 4 jurisdiction. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: February 15, 2023

8 ____________________ 9 Hon. Jinsook Ohta United States District Court 10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28